ReviewFood chemistry: X2026
Emerging non-thermal processing technologies and their impact on the quality, safety, and bioactive integrity of camel milk: A review article.
Review in Food chemistry: X, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Camel milk is a nutrient-rich functional food containing bioactive proteins, peptides, vitamins, minerals, and other constituents associated with antimicrobial, antioxidant, antidiabetic, and immunomodulatory activities. However, conventional thermal processing can compromise heat-sensitive nutrients and bioactive compounds. This review critically evaluates high-pressure processing (HPP), pulsed electric fields (PEF), ultrasonication, ultraviolet (UV-C), cold plasma, and ozonation regarding their effects on microbial safety, quality, and bioactive integrity of camel milk. A PRISMA-based literature search covering publications from 2001 to 2026 was conducted using relevant electronic databases, predefined search terms, and eligibility criteria, followed by systematic screening and qualitative synthesis of relevant studies. Evidence indicates that non-thermal technologies can achieve microbial reduction while limiting quality deterioration. HPP and ultrasonication have comparatively stronger camel-specific evidence, whereas evidence for PEF, UV-C, cold plasma, and ozonation remains limited. High costs, infrastructure constraints, cold-chain dependence, and insufficient camel-specific validation remain major barriers. Future research should prioritize standardized microbial inactivation kinetics, bioactive-retention studies, and techno-economic assessment to support safe and scalable application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.